coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and resides in the town of Novogrodovka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.
6.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovskaya Mining Company No. 1/3 – a State-owned enterprise – to recover salary arrears and compensation for damage to his health.
7.  On 28 March 2002 the Novogrodovskiy Town Court found in favour of the applicant (Решения Новогродовского городского суда Донецкой области) and awarded him UAH 4,133.81[1]. This judgment was sent for enforcement to the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы Новогродовского городского управления юстиции).
8.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment of 28 March 2002 in his favour. On 10 October 2002 the Town Court rejected the applicant’s claim, finding that no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs’ Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs’ Service had acted properly in enforcing the judgment of 28 March 2002. However, by a number of decisions of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region, the Bailiffs’ Service had been prohibited from selling the property of the Mining Company, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against the company. On 9 December 2002 the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk Region dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 3 October 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation.
9.  In June 2004 the applicant withdrew his writ of execution.
10.  In August 2004 the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced in full.
5.  The applicants were born in 1944 and 1951 respectively and live in Antalya.
6.  On 10 December 1997 the General Directorate of National Airports expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicants. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicants when the expropriation took place.
7.  On 30 December 1997 the applicants filed an action with the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance requesting additional compensation. On 20 April 1998 the First-instance court awarded them additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate.
8.  On 21 February 2000 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance, finding that the amount awarded was too high.
9.  On 22 December 2000 the Antalya Civil Court awarded the applicants additional compensation of 8,185,550,750 Turkish Liras (TRL) (approximately 5,100 euros (EUR)) plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 19 December 1997, the date on which the title deed to the land had been transferred. The judgment of the court became final on 18 January 2001.
10.  On 12 January 2001 the authorities paid the applicants the sum of TRL 21,896,872,000 (approximately EUR 13,700), including interest.
4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Poznań, Poland.
5.  W.M., the applicant’s father died intestate in 1988. In November 1990, P.M., the applicant’s mother, requested the Poznań District Court to declare that she and her three children, including the applicant, were entitled to inherit from W.M.
6.  In the course of those proceedings, the applicant’s mother, who had made three different wills, died in 1992. Consequently, on 9 March 1992 the applicant requested to join the case concerning the persons entitled to inherit from his mother to the original proceedings.
7.  The District Court held 6 hearings in 1992.
8.  The District Court held 4 hearings on the following dates: 27 September 1993; 4 August and 28 October 1994; and 2 October 1995.
9.  On 11 February 1994 the court ordered that evidence from an expert be obtained. The expert report was served on the parties on 18 March 1994. On 28 October 1994 the court ordered that evidence from a handwriting expert be obtained. The expert report was submitted to the court on 7 June 1995.
10.  On 16 October 1995 the Poznań District Court gave its decision (postanowienie). It ruled that the estate of W.M. should pass, according to the relevant statute, to the applicant’s mother, the applicant, his sister (B.K.) and W.M.’s granddaughter. In respect of the persons entitled to inherit from the applicant’s mother, the District Court held that her entire estate should pass to the applicant’s sister on the basis of the will made in 1990. The applicant appealed against the District Court’s decision.
11.  On 27 February 1996 the Poznań Regional Court quashed the District Court’s decision on the persons entitled to inherit from the applicant’s mother and accordingly, remitted the case in part. It found that the first-instance proceedings in that respect had been null and void on the ground that M.M. (the applicant’s daughter), who had a legal interest in the case, had not been summoned to participate in the proceedings. The Regional Court upheld the remainder of the first-instance decision.
12.  In the subsequent proceedings the District Court held 8 hearings on the following dates: 7 January, 26 September and 28 November 1997; 12 May, 21 August and 22 December 1998; and 8 and 22 February 1999.
13.  On 18 March 1999 the Poznań District Court ruled that B.K. (the applicant’s sister) was the only person entitled to inherit from the applicant’s mother in accordance with the 1990 will. The applicant appealed against the District Court’s decision.
14.  The Poznań Regional Court held a hearing on 9 November 1999. On 26 November 1999 it quashed the decision and remitted the case.
15.  On 2 January 2001 the Poznan District Court held the first and the only hearing. On the same day it held in a decision that the only person entitled to inherit from P.M., the applicant’s mother, was M.M. (the applicant’s daughter) in accordance with the will made in 1988. It appears that none of the parties appealed against that decision.
4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Piaseczno, Poland.
5.  In 1982 the applicant divorced. On 17 March 1983 she initiated before the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) civil proceedings concerning the division of matrimonial property. The estate consisted of a semi‑detached house.
6.  Afterwards, until February 1991, the court held thirteen hearings.
7.  Between 18 January 1995 and 7 November 1997 six hearings were held. Subsequently, the District Court ordered that an expert opinion be prepared.
8.  On 22 April 1998 the court held a hearing and on 5 June 1998 it gave a partial decision.
9.  On 23 September 1998 and 8 July 1999 the District Court held hearings and decided that another expert opinion should be prepared.
10.  On 30 January 2001 the court held a hearing.
11.  On 4 June 2001 the Warsaw District Court gave a decision in which it divided the property in question. The applicant submitted that the judgment became final on 25 June 2001. According to the Government’s submission a party had lodged an appeal which was subsequently withdrawn. On 11 September 2001 the appellate proceedings were finally discontinued.
8.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Shipston Stour, Warwickshire.
9.  Under current United Kingdom law, the state pension age is 65 for men and 60 for women. Until these ages, men and women who work are required to pay national insurance contributions (“NICs”) if their earnings are above a threshold amount, currently 385 pounds sterling (GBP) per month.
10.  The applicant is over 60 years old and works as an administrator. Since he has not reached the state pension age for men of 65, he is required to pay NICs on his earnings. At the time of introduction of the application, his monthly salary was GBP 2,970 and he paid 10% of his earnings (between the primary threshold of GBP 385 and the upper earnings limit of GBP 2,535) in NICs (Class 1), amounting to GBP 215 per month and GBP 2,580 per annum. From April 2003, NICs increased to 11% of the amount up to the upper earnings limit, plus an additional 1% on all earnings above the limit. The applicant’s NICs increased to GBP 241.34 per month.
11.  The applicant will be required to pay national insurance contributions from his earnings until he reaches the age of 65.
12.  A woman of 60 years or more who continued to work would not be required to pay any NICs on her earnings.
13.  The applicant wrote to his Member of Parliament and the Paymaster General complaining about the difference in treatment for men and women. Both replied stating that since liability to pay national insurance contributions is linked to the state pension age, the treatment of men and women would equalise in 2020 when the state pension age will equalise.
4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and is currently serving a prison sentence.
5.  On 7 May 2003 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody by an investigating judge of the Novi Sad District Court on suspicion of fraud and murder.
6.  On 4 November 2003 the district public prosecutor’s office in Novi Sad issued an indictment against the applicant on charges of fraud and incitement to commit murder.
7.  On 2 April 2004 the three-judge panel of the Novi Sad District Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand for another two months. In its reasoning, justifying this decision, the panel relied on the applicant’s prior convictions as well as his persistent anti-social behaviour. In addition, the panel expressly stated that the applicant had “committed the criminal offences which are the subject of this prosecution” (“počinio kriv. dela koja su predmet ove optužbe”) and concluded that the applicant, if released, would be likely to commit further offences.
8.  On 16 April 2004 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of Serbia, requesting that his detention be terminated or, alternatively, that the remand decision be quashed and the case remitted to the Novi Sad District Court for reconsideration. He argued, inter alia, that, since the impugned decision had prejudged the outcome of the pending criminal case, it had blatantly breached his fundamental right to be presumed innocent as “guaranteed in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and, indeed, Article 6 § 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”.
9.  On 22 April 2004 the Supreme Court of Serbia dismissed the appeal, focusing exclusively on the applicant’s prior criminal convictions and the alleged danger that he would commit further offences if released. It did not refer to the applicant’s submission concerning the presumption of innocence.
10.  On 27 May 2004 the Novi Sad District Court found the applicant guilty of incitement to murder and sentenced him to eight years in prison.
11.  On 23 September 2004 the Supreme Court of Serbia upheld the judgment of the Novi Sad District Court. As stated by the applicant in a separate case currently pending before this Court (no. 31617/05), his lawyer received that decision on 7 March 2005.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Turkey.
5.  On 16 July 1993 the applicant was taken into police custody by police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership in an illegal organisation, the TDP (Revolutionary Party of Turkey) and of possessing a false identity card. He was held in police custody until 30 July 1993.
6.  On 30 July 1993 he was brought before a judge who ordered his detention on remand. He asserted that he had not signed any statement and claimed that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody.
7.  On 15 September 1993 the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with the latter charging the applicant under Article 168 § 1 of the Criminal Code with membership of an illegal organisation.
8.  On 25 January 2000 the applicant was released from detention.
9.  Between 16 July 1993 and 25 January 2000 the Istanbul State Security Court held thirty-six hearings. The applicant requested to be released pending trial several times before the trial court. The Istanbul State Security Court dismissed his request on all occasions, having regard to the state of the evidence, until 25 January 2000.
10.  On 26 March 1996 the Istanbul State Security Court requested the Forensic Medical Institute to carry out an analysis as to whether the documents, which were submitted as written evidence, were drafted by the applicant and another co-accused, namely M.A.A..
11.  Until 17 February 2004 the trial court postponed the hearings in order to wait for the Forensic Medical Institute’s report on the issue and to be informed about the prison that M.A.A had been detained.
12.  On 17 February 2004 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be terminated on the ground that the statutory time-limit under Articles 102 and 104 of the Criminal Code had expired.
4.  The General Directorate of the National Water Board expropriated two plots of land belonging to the applicants, for the construction of a dam.
5.  On 6 October 1998, following the first applicant’s request for increased compensation for the plot no. 484, the Baskil Civil Court of General Jurisdiction awarded him 14,241,020,000 Turkish liras (TRL) of additional compensation, plus an interest at the statutory rate, as of 22 June 1998.
6.  On 4 March 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the first instance court. On 9 February 2002 and 1 May 2003 TRL 25,281,500 and TRL 901,930 were paid to the applicant respectively.
7.  On 14 February 2000 the second applicant filed a similar request with the Baskil Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, regarding the plot no. 311.
8.  On 29 November 2000 the court accepted the applicant’s request for increased compensation and awarded her TRL 46,396,000,000 of additional compensation, plus an interest at the statutory rate, as of 14 February 2000. On 14 February 2000 and 5 April 2001, TRL 172,512,450,000 and TRL 3,976,900,000 were paid to the applicant respectively.
5.  All of the applicants live in Baskil, Turkey.
6.  On 19 July 1993 each of them brought separate actions before the Baskil Civil Court against the National Water Board. They alleged that their plots of land were illegally seized by the administration for a dam construction without any payment, and requested compensation.
7.  On 18 November 1993 the court ruled that the cases should be characterised as compensation claims arising from de facto expropriations rather than claims for illegal seizures. The court established that a committee of experts had assessed the value of the expropriated land in advance and that the authorities had paid the resulting amounts to the owners registered in the local land registry. The court ordered the administration to pay the applicants an amount of increased compensation, plus interest at the statutory rate, starting from 1986 when the land was submerged in the waters of the dam.
8.  On 6 October 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed these judgments, holding that the cases could not be characterised as compensation claims arising from expropriation. Upon the applicants' request, however, the Court of Cassation reversed its decision and held, on 10 March 1995, that the cases could in fact be characterised as compensation claims arising from expropriation. It proceeded to quash the judgments of the first-instance court only in respect of the date from which the statutory rate of interest began to run.
9.  By decisions of 21 December 1995 and 25 January 1986, the Baskil Civil Court ordered the administration to pay the applicants a certain amount of compensation, plus interest running from 1986, despite the earlier rulings of the Court of Cassation regarding the starting date from which interest was to be calculated.
10.  On 20 November 1996 the Plenary Court of Cassation quashed the judgments of the Baskil Civil Court. The same court rejected the applicants' rectification request on 2 May 1997.
11.  On 9 October 1997 the Baskil Civil Court ordered the administration to pay the applicants 315,650,000, 297,439,800, 265,571,250, 404,680,000 and 708,190,000 Turkish liras (TRL) respectively, plus interest at the statutory rate running from 19 August 1993, the date on which the land was transferred to the National Water Board.
12.  On 17 March 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld these judgments. On 2 April 1998 the Court of Cassation's rulings were served on the applicants.
13.  On 9 December 1998 the administration paid TRL 934,027,000 to Ms Mürvet Fidan, 884,579,000 TRL to Mr Murat Fidan, TRL 790,746,000 to Mr Hikmet Fidan, TRL 1,190,092,000 to Ms Zehra Fidan and TRL 2,041,230,000 to Ms Elif Özbilge.
4.  The applicants were born 1966 and 1934 respectively, and live in Neryungri in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic of the Russian Federation.
5.  The applicants brought a civil action against the Government, seeking to enforce State promissory notes for purchase of a Russian-made car or to recover the monetary value thereof.
6.  On 17 March 2003 the Ust-Yanskiy District Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic found for the applicants and awarded 112,441.80 Russian roubles (“RUR”) to the first applicant and RUR 107,327.82 to the second applicant against the Ministry of Finance.
7.  On 23 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic (hereinafter – “the Supreme Court”) rejected an appeal by the Ministry of Finance and upheld the judgment.
8.  The enforcement proceedings were opened on 15 May 2003, but the judgment was not enforced.
9.  By interim decision of 11 August 2003, Judge R. of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic refused a request by the Ministry of Finance for obtaining the case file for the purpose of initiating supervisory-review proceedings. The Ministry had claimed that the courts had incorrectly applied the substantive law.
10.  By letter of 20 October 2003, the Supreme Court's President rejected a renewed request by the Ministry of Finance for launching the supervisory-review proceedings.
11.  On 9 June 2004 the Ministry of Finance introduced a new application for supervisory review of the judgments in the applicants' favour, founded on the same grounds as before.
12.  On 30 September 2004 the Supreme Court's President issued an interim decision on remitting the applicants' cases for examination on the merits to the Supreme Court's Presidium by way of supervisory review. In the procedural part, the interim decision of 11 August 2003, but not the letter of 20 October 2003, was mentioned.
13.  On 14 October 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, in a five-judge formation presided over by the Supreme Court's President, found that the lower courts had not taken into account certain provisions relating to reimbursement of State promissory notes. On that ground, relying on Articles 388 and 390 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Presidium quashed the judgments in the applicants' favour and dismissed their claim as having no basis in the domestic law.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the town of Dubna in the Moscow Region.
5.  On 17 June 2002 the Dubna Town Court allowed the applicant's claim against the Dubna Town Administration for provision of housing. The Town Court ordered that the administration:
“...provide Mr Tarasov, whose family comprises three members, with a separate well-equipped flat having a living surface of no less than 61 square metres on the basis of a special tenancy agreement...”.
6.  The judgment was upheld on appeal on 12 August 2002 by the Moscow Regional Court.
7.  Enforcement proceedings were opened. However, the judgment could not be enforced because the town administration possessed no available housing or financial resources to purchase a flat.
8.  On 24 February 2005 the Dubna Town Administration signed a contract with the applicant. According to the contract, the administration was to provide the applicant with a flat in 2005.
9.  On 25 February 2005, upon the applicant's request, the Dubna Town Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings.
10.  In August 2005 the Dubna Town Administration bought a three-room flat for the applicant. It appears that in September 2005 the applicant moved into the flat.
11.  In February 2003 the applicant requested a court to amend the method of enforcement of the judgment of 17 June 2002 and to order that the Dubna Town Administration should pay him the value of a flat.
12.  On 26 February 2003 the Dubna Town Court dismissed the applicant's claim. That judgment was quashed on appeal on 2 April 2003 and the case was remitted for a fresh examination.
13.  On 26 June and 18 September 2003 the Dubna Town Court allowed the claim. Both judgements were quashed on appeal and the matter was remitted for re-examination.
14.  On 10 March 2004 the Town Court dismissed the applicant's claim. The judgment became final on 22 June 2004.
5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Štip, in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
6.  In 1981 the public undertaking “Elektrostopanstvo” (“the company”) installed a power-distribution pillar on a plot of land, which at that time was the property of the applicant's father. The latter did not object to it. The applicant gained ownership of the land in 1988 as a gift from his father.
7.  On 26 February 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against “Pogon Elektroistok Štip”, a branch of the company, claiming restoration of the property in his possession and removal of the pillar and the auxiliary installations, as they had been constructed without his (and his father's) consent.
8.  Between 26 February 1996 and 10 July 1996 the trial court scheduled nine hearings and took the following actions: an on-site inspection; an examination of a witness and an expertise. Within this period, the applicant also extended his claim requesting compensation.
9.  On 10 July 1996 the Štip Municipal Court upheld the applicant's claim ordering the company to restore the plot of land in the applicant's possession and to remove the pillar and auxiliary installations.
10.  On 25 February 1997 the Štip Court of Appeal quashed the lower court's decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It held that the branch of the company had not had legal capacity to stand in the proceedings.
11.  On 5 September 1997 the trial court requested the applicant to clarify his claim. On 9 September 1997 the applicant replied that the proceedings should continue against the company.
12.  At the hearing held on 27 November 1997 (in the absence of the company albeit properly summoned), the Štip Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant's claim as out on time. It found that the applicant (and his father) had known about the installation of the pillar and that he had failed to bring his claim within the statutory time-limits of three years (subjective term) or ten years (objective term) after the pillar had been fixed on the property.
13.  On 25 November 1998 the Štip Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the lower court's decision.
14.  On 15 January 1999 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Court an appeal on points of law (ревизија) against the Appeal Court's decision. He argued that the lower courts had erroneously established the facts and had wrongly applied national law.
15.  On 10 January 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law. It upheld the lower courts' decisions on a different reasoning: by installing the power-distribution pillar in 1981, the company had obtained an encumbrance (право на службеност) over the plot of land to which neither the applicant's father nor the applicant had objected to in 1981 when the pillar was installed or in 1988 when the applicant gained ownership of the property. The judgment was served on the applicant on 11 April 2002.